The Blood-Brain Barrier: Its Influence in the Treatment of Brain Tumors Metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain metastases represent the most common intracranial tumors in the adults. Its incidence outnumbers that of primary brain tumors by a tenfold factor. Estimated cumulative incidence is between 10 to 20% of all cancer patients, which would represent over 170 000 new cases in the US. Typically, patients with multiple brain metastases are exposed to whole brain radiation therapy, as a palliative measure. Resulting median survival improvement is modest, ranging from 3 to 5 months. This survival has not been altered despite 3 decades of clinical research aiming at improving outcome of these patients. The role of standard chemotherapy in the treatment of brain metastases has always been marginal, as the penetration of chemotherapy beyond the BBB (blood-brain barrier) is considered limited. Whereas the BBB is universally recognized as a physiological entity, its role in the treatment of brain metastases remains controversial. Metastatic lesions often depict a homogeneous intense enhancement on either CT or MRI, thus implying that the brain tumor barrier (BTB) is breached. Although there is no doubt that the BBB and BTB suffer from variable degrees of breach in integrity in the presence of malignant brain tumors, impediment to drug delivery remains, and strategy to optimize delivery must be considered if one is to really impact patient ’ s outcome in the treatment of these diseases. The intended purpose of this paper is to review current data on the role of the BBB in the treatment of CNS metastatic disease. Keywords: Blood-brain barrier disruption, blood-brain barrier, brain metastases, chemotherapy, Convection enhanced delivery, cerebrospinal fluid, compturized tomograph, Gadolinium-DiethyleneTriamine Pentaacetic Acid, Human Epidermal growth factor Receptor 2, Magentic resonance imaging, mammalian target of rapamycin, Positron emitting tomograph, Small cell lung carcinoma, Vascular endothelial growth factor
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".